What is the historical significance of Roger Federer's 2nd round loss today at

[ggcuvi8]

Wimbledon? BQ: Did you know that losing today means that this is the first time since the end of the 2003 tennis season that he drops out of the Top 4?
BQ2: Do you think that although we all know that he will continue declining and eventually retiring that he could MAYBE perhaps win 1 more Grand Slam title?
Bob, sorry. I forgot to mention in my first best question that by Federer losing, it means he will drop to #5 in the world when the rankings are updated July 8, which is the day after Wimbledon ends.

 

[10ISGAWD]

By losing in the second round of the 2013 Wimbledon, Roger Federer has fired the first salvo that this is the official end of his years of dominating any surface in the sport of tennis.

Yes, it's true . . . although he will continue to compete, the aura of invincibility that once surrounded his every stride, that bright light that he once owned is alas, no more.

He will fall out of the Top 5 . . . then the Top 10 . . . it is all so reminiscent of Pistol Pete Sampras . . . I don't, however, believe that Roger will be afforded the last grand slam trophy and a wistful last look over his shoulder at his adoring fans as he leaves forever to walk in the light of the immortals of tennis.

Roger gets to decide how and on what terms that he walks into the transcendent light of champions . . . he has earned that.

 

[bob1]

Its been 10 years since he lost so early, the last time was at the French 1st round in 2003.

Yes, he's going to lose a lot of points, but I'm sure he can get back into the top 5 by the end of the year.

He's going to have to play a lot better if he wants to win anymore Grand Slams, which is unlikely. At this rate I don't think he'll win any more Grand Slam. Why? He doesn't seem like he wants it anymore, he just wants to compete. This was his last chance to win another Grand Slam.